1 2 3 4 5 DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM 6 VINCENT T. TEDTAOTAO, Civil Case No. 09-00027 7 Petitioner, Criminal Case No. CR86-044A

8 vs. OPINION AND ORDER 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 10 Respondent. 11 12 Petitioner Vincent T. Tedtaotao (“the Petitioner”) filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or 13 Correct Sentence pursuant to

(“the Motion”) on October 1, 2009. See Docket 14 No. 1. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(e)(3), this matter is appropriate for decision without the 15 need for a hearing or oral argument.1 Because this court does not have jurisdiction over this 16 case, and for the reasons contained herein, the motion is HEREBY DENIED and this case is 17 DISMISSED. 18 The Petitioner was indicted in the Superior Court of Guam for the murder of David 19 Untalan, after an altercation at a Maite nightclub on August 20, 1985. Guam v. Tedtaotao, 896

, 372 (9th Cir. 1990). After a jury trial, the Petitioner was found guilty on June 4, 1986, 21 of one count of Murder, one count of Attempted Murder, and two counts of use of a deadly 22 weapon which subjected the Petitioner to an enhanced sentence. See Docket No. 1; Tedtaotao, 23 896 F.2d at 372. The Appellate Division of the District Court of Guam affirmed.2 See

25 1 Local Civil Rule 7.1(e)(3) states “[i]n cases where the parties have requested oral argument, such oral argument may be taken off calendar by Order of the Court, in the discretion of 26 the Court, and a decision rendered on the basis of the written materials on file.” 27 2 Until the establishment of the Supreme Court of Guam in 1996, the Appellate Division 28 of the District Court of Guam had jurisdiction over appeals from the Superior Court of Guam. See 1 371. The Petitioner then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals,3 which also affirmed. 2 See id. The Petitioner, although convicted by the territorial court, is currently confined at a 3 federal correctional facility pursuant to a “Compact Agreement Contract.” See Docket No. 1. 4 The Petitioner now files the instant Motion in this court, seeking post-conviction relief. 5 He requests this court hold an evidentiary hearing on his argument that the Superior Court of 6 Guam court erred in refusing to admit evidence at his trial, and his claim of ineffective assistance 7 of counsel. See Docket No. 1. 8 The dispositive issue, however, is whether this court has jurisdiction. The Petitioner was 9 convicted by the Superior Court of Guam on June 4, 1986, and pursuant to the existing laws 10 when his appeal was pending, he properly appealed to the Appellate Division of the District 11 Court of Guam and to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See notes 2 and 3. Since that time, 12 however, a new appellate system was instituted for the island’s territorial courts when the 13 Supreme Court of Guam was established on April 21, 1996. See

(a). 14 It is the Supreme Court of Guam that has jurisdiction over the Petitioner’s claim of post- 15 conviction relief. Based on the record before this court, it is not clear whether he has sought 16 such relief by filing a habeas corpus petition at the Supreme Court of Guam. Unless and until 17 the Petitioner has exhausted his state remedies, this court does not have jurisdiction. See Smith 18 v. Baldwin,

(9th Cir. 2007) (“Before a federal court may consider the 19 merits of a state prisoner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the prisoner generally must first 20 exhaust his available state court remedies.”). 21 SO ORDERED. 22 23 24 25 1(a) of this title, which is known as the Supreme Court of Guam, the District Court of Guam shall have such appellate jurisdiction over the local courts of Guam as the legislature may determine[ .]”). 26 3 Appeals from the Appellate Division of the District Court of Guam were heard by the 27 Ninth Circuit.

(c) (“The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the appellate division of the district 28